- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29199 W.P. No.12388/2021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF JUNE, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL WRIT PETITION NO.12388/2021 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: SRI. SIDDAIAH SON OF KALAIAH AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS R/AT K. SHETTAHALLI VILLAGE K. SHETTHALLI HOBLI SRIRANGAPATNA TALUK MANDYA DISTRICT-571438. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. KUSHAL GOWDA, ADV., FOR SRI. N. BYREGOWDA, ADV.,) AND: 1. SMT. LAKSHMAMMA WIFE OF NAGARAJU AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS R/AT KYATHANAHALLI VILLAGE CHINAKURLI HOBLI PANDAVAPURA TALUK MANDYA DISTRICT 571434. 2. SMT. CHIKKATHAYAMMA WIFE OF MAHADEVU AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS R/AT HIRIYURU VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI, T.NARASIPURA TALUK MYSORE DISTRICT 571110. 3. SMT. SUVARNAMMA WIFE OF MAHESHA AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS. Digitally signed by RUPA V Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29199 W.P. No.12388/2021 4. SRI. BYRAMURTHY SON OF MAHESHA AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS. RESPONDENT NOS.4 & 5 ARE R/AT K. SHETTAHALLI VILLAGE K. SHETTAHALLI HOBLI SRIRANGAPATNA TALUK MANDYA DISTRICT-571438. 5. SMT. MANGALAMMA WIFE OF MAHADEVU AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS RESIDING AT MALAVALLI MALAVALLI TALUK MANDYA DISTRICT 560004. 6. THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER AND COMPETENT AUTHORITY NATIONAL HIGHWAY-275 BENGALURU-MYSORE SECTION BASAVANAPURA RAMANAGARA DISTRICT-562128. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. BASAVARAJU, ADV., FOR R1 AND R3 TO R5 SRI. PRAKASHA V. ANGADI, ADV., FOR R6 R2 CHIKKATHAYAMMA SD AND UNREPRESENTED) THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 23.04.2021 PASSED BY THE PRL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE MANDYA ON IA NO.IX IN MISC. CASE NO.37/2018 (ANNEXURE-H) AND CONSEQUENTLY ALLOW IA NO.IX AS PRAYED FOR THE PETITIONER IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY & ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29199 W.P. No.12388/2021 ORAL ORDER This petition is filed challenging the order dated 23.04.2021 passed on IA.No.9 in Misc.No.37/2018 by the Principal District and Session Judge, Mandya (for short ‘the trial Court’). 2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents and meticulously perused the material available on record. 3. The petitioner has filed OS.No.38/2017 against the respondents herein seeking relief of partition and separate possession of his 1/5th share in the suit schedule property. The suit schedule property in the aforesaid suit is land bearing Sy.No.184/1-Pai-P1 measuring 15 guntas situated at K.Shettahalli, K.Shettahalli Hobli, Srirangapatna Taluk. In the said suit, the petitioner/plaintiff filed an application under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short ‘CPC’) seeking a temporary injunction restraining the - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29199 W.P. No.12388/2021 defendants from withdrawing the compensation amount from defendant No.6. The said application was allowed by the trial Court vide order dated 19.04.2018 by restraining defendant Nos.1 to 5 from withdrawing the compensation amount from defendant No.6 in any manner till disposal of the suit. The said order has attained finality. Subsequently, respondent No.6-The Special Land Acquisition Officer and Competent Authority, National Highway-275, Bengaluru-Mysore Section, Basavanapura, Ramanagara District has filed miscellaneous proceedings in Misc.No.37/2018 seeking determination of the person entitled to the compensation in respect of the acquired land, after conducting enquiry. The records indicate that, in the said miscellaneous proceedings, the Land Acquisition Officer has deposited the compensation amount. Thereafter, the petitioner, who is the plaintiff in OS.No.38/17 and respondent No.1 in the said miscellaneous proceedings, filed an application under Section 10 of the CPC seeking stay of the further - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29199 W.P. No.12388/2021 proceedings in Misc.No.37/2018 pending disposal of OS.No.38/2017. However, the trial Court rejected the application by the impugned order solely on the ground that the nature of the proceedings are different. 4. It is to be noticed that the petitioner has filed a suit for partition with regard to the suit schedule property and suit schedule property is shown in the plaint as land bearing Sy.No.1-Pai-P1 measuring 15 guntas. It is not in dispute between the parties that out of the suit land, 12½ guntas has been acquired for the benefit of the National Highways Authority and the authority has determined the compensation and deposited in Misc.No.37/2018. The petitioner is seeking relief of partition and his share of 1/5th in the suit schedule property and the very subject matter is pending in the aforesaid suit as to whether the petitioner would be entitled to share in the suit schedule property or not. When things stood thus, if Misc.No.37/2018 is permitted to continue and the Principal District Court is allowed to proceed and adjudicate the - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29199 W.P. No.12388/2021 entitlement to the compensation amount, in my considered view, would cause great prejudice to the petitioner/plaintiff in OS.No.38/2017 as the issue with regard to the share is the subject matter in the aforesaid suit, and until the said suit is decided on merits, any adjudication with regard to the entitlement of the compensation amount with regard to portion of suit schedule property would amount to putting the cart before the horse, which is impermissible. It is also not in dispute that the nature of proceedings in Misc.No.37/2018 are distinct from those in a suit for partition. I am of the view that the proceedings in Misc.No.37/2018 cannot be allowed to continue during the pendency of the suit for partition as the issue involved in both the proceedings are substantially one and the same. 5. The contention of the learned counsel for the respondents is that the petitioner has already got their share in Sy.No.184/P2 to the extent of 25 guntas. In my considered view, the said contention cannot be - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29199 W.P. No.12388/2021 appreciated in the present proceedings. It is open for the respondents, who are the defendants in the suit to raise such contention in the pending suit. With the aforesaid observation, I am of the view that the writ petition deserves to be allowed. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed-in-part. The impugned order dated 23.04.2021 passed on IA.No.9 in Misc.No.37/2018 by the Principal District and Session Judge, Mandya is hereby set aside. Consequently, IA.No.9 is allowed. The Principal District and Sessions Judge, Mandya shall not proceed with Misc.No.37/2018 during the pendency of OS.No.38/2017. The trial Court shall endure to dispose of OS.No.38/2017 as expeditiously as possible. Sd/- (VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL) JUDGE ABK List No.: 2 Sl No.: 7